Clyde FC; Season 2022-23

[haufdaft]

To try & summarize
As for the Board.  It's not a case of questioning their integrity, it's a question of listening to what they have to say and applying some basic logic to it.  There is a huge area of the club which hasn't been properly addressed for a long time, and that's specifically extensive commercial activity.  I posted on here thoughts on that a couple of days ago as to what I felt should be done so won't repeat all that.  But generally, the club appear to have a policy that unless the required expertise can be found from within our numbers as volunteers, then if need be, it will have to remain unaddressed.  In any organization that position is untenable, it's effectively negligence.
I've never particularly advocated for a "big money man" to come in, because if a company were hired to carry out this operation to a professional level, I don't see the need.
That links to your thoughts on owning your own stadium.  You've taken it at face value that's the case because the Board said so.  Again in a post from a couple of days ago I've outlined the reasons where it may be the case to at least consider whether that view is automatically correct.
I can think of many reasons why Danny, at the first of official fans forums launched by the Chairman, would have publicly stated what he did about the backing.  The fact he was unable to get his first choice players is purely down to finance, clearly that's the primary motive of the majority of players.  Given where they ultimately did move to, that's pretty damning of the overall club situation.   It's not a question of glossing over recruitment.  He's made many quality signings in the past, and others definitely less so.  However the current quality of recruitment is linked directly to what has been made available to him.   It was also explained that those two other individuals do have a role to play in sourcing players, Danny telling them what he needs, their job to source them.  But again that's within the constraints of the budget available.   If he had the required budget, he would have landed his primary targets.  So of course he has the final say, but there's context.
There's things you don't do when money's tight, and there's things you literally can't do.  
Football is like any other industry, word goes around about the "state" of each club.  Right now, I cannot see any evidence to suggest that a string of potential candidates, all of whom would need to be better than Danny self evidently, would be lining up to be manager.   I'd suggest you look at the list of managers we've had since around 2009 as a guide to the quality of candidate we've been able to attract.  For me, warts & all, DL has been by some distance the best in that time.  Little wonder others suggest to be careful what you wish for.   

You make some reasonable points a few of which I wouldn't disagree with. I admit that I understand corporate matters only a little. You may know much more about what's going on at the club. I do agree that we need to do better in raising income for the club.


My question has always been, as some have asked me about manager recruitment, who else is waiting on the wings to take over the running of the club? Is there anyone? Could we employ someone on a salary?

From your posts it seems that the one person not responsible for the performances on the pitch and the recruitment of players is our current manager. Everyone else is to blame.

If the budget is so small, for whatever reason, do you agree that Danny has wasted a substantial amount of the player fund?

Danny knew the budget before the season started. Why then seek first choices that you suggest we couldn't afford . Then compound that error by wasting time awaiting their decision. Even Danny said this was his mistake resulting in is missing out on second, third and fourth choices.

[Bullyweeno1]

4 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

 He's made many quality signings in the past,

Be interested if you can name 5 quality signings that DL has made in the past that were directly made by him

Personally I feel this is DLs biggest flaw and think overall his signings under his tenure have been pretty poor

 

[Bullyweeno1]

Re posts above I would never criticise the board as know the hours that they have to put in and working 15-20 hours per week for no compensation isn’t something I would do.

I always say if anyone thinks they can do things better it is fairly easy to get yourself nominated and sure the board would welcome people with the skills and experience they are missing eg sales and marketing, corporate governance, business strategy and implementation.

It may be something I would be interested in 15-20 years down the line when have the time but certainly wouldn’t the now

[Bullyweeno1]

3 hours ago, haufdaft said:
If the budget is so small, for whatever reason, do you agree that Danny has wasted a substantial amount of the player fund?
 

Absolutely he has wasted a lot of the budget

In any walk of life when you have a small budget you should go for quality over quantity  using that budget

We should have targeted a squad of no more than 18 (14 signed players and 4 loans) which would have probably meant we would have got most of our targets.  The strategy of signings was obviously wrong for the start

That we currently have a squad of 25 (4 of them out on loan) is absolutely bonkers.

Equally bonkers that we have players of no proven pedigree at L1 level on 2 year contracts.  
 

Only player that we couldn’t do without is DGW and he is the only one that should be on a contract of more than a year

 

[BrigtonClyde]

The points above.  I've already covered them but to try & clarify once and for all

The question about "The Board".  What I've said is that the way the club is run appears to be that every part of its operation must be filled by volunteers.  If you find the expertise needed, then that's the ideal scenario.  But after all these years it's clear that at least in the area of commercial / marketing it doesn't exist there.  The suggestion being the club then look to engage with a professional company to handle that, but initially would meet with them, set out the aims and targets and ask for a feasibility assessment be done.   If that assessment suggests it can be done, and operating on a predominantly commission basis, that could be a game changer.  If it suggests it can't be done and cites the non ownership of the stadium as the primary reason, then you actually have an expert assessment to use as the basis of any decision to relocate.

Player recruitment, or to simplify, the overall standard of player we can get to the club.  Comes down to a combination of the manager's decision, in our case it appears to be there is also a recruitment team, and the budget available in the context of the other clubs you're competing with, so all play a part.   I have said that some of Danny's signings over the years have been poor, but in the overall picture of what we can attract, a combination of these factors are in play.  That's different to Haufdaft's insistence that the sole responsibility of the quality of player we can recruit is on the shoulders of the manager.  

The idea of going with a smaller pool, quality over quantity.  In theory, yes, more money offered to a smaller number of players could have improved the quality of perhaps the first 11 - 14.  But it's a long season, the smaller the pool the more you're relying on luck that suspensions and injuries won't have a serious impact.  We've suffered that in recent seasons.  So in that case, who do you flesh the squad out with, how do you know they'll still be of adequate quality, and as for "options 2, 3 or 4" at League 1 level, are you confident whoever they were would've been much better quality than what we already have ?

On the one hand, yes, it's fair to look at some of the decisions in recruitment, and all who are involved in that - there's clearly more than one - but on the other if the underlying position was that the club were producing an adequate budget in the first place, it's less likely we'd even be discussing any of this.    

[FREDDYFRY]

My take on the question of smaller pool and increased quality is that is the way we should have gone.  

I take the point on injury and suspension but the period of the season up until January we could have ran with it as there is less suspensions given the number of games played and knowing we could bolster the squad with bodies either during the loan period just gone (which we didn’t do inexplicably anyway) or in January. Injury we can’t legislate for I know.

[haufdaft]

The points above.  I've already covered them but to try & clarify once and for all
The question about "The Board".  What I've said is that the way the club is run appears to be that every part of its operation must be filled by volunteers.  If you find the expertise needed, then that's the ideal scenario.  But after all these years it's clear that at least in the area of commercial / marketing it doesn't exist there.  The suggestion being the club then look to engage with a professional company to handle that, but initially would meet with them, set out the aims and targets and ask for a feasibility assessment be done.   If that assessment suggests it can be done, and operating on a predominantly commission basis, that could be a game changer.  If it suggests it can't be done and cites the non ownership of the stadium as the primary reason, then you actually have an expert assessment to use as the basis of any decision to relocate.
Player recruitment, or to simplify, the overall standard of player we can get to the club.  Comes down to a combination of the manager's decision, in our case it appears to be there is also a recruitment team, and the budget available in the context of the other clubs you're competing with, so all play a part.   I have said that some of Danny's signings over the years have been poor, but in the overall picture of what we can attract, a combination of these factors are in play.  That's different to Haufdaft's insistence that the sole responsibility of the quality of player we can recruit is on the shoulders of the manager.  
The idea of going with a smaller pool, quality over quantity.  In theory, yes, more money offered to a smaller number of players could have improved the quality of perhaps the first 11 - 14.  But it's a long season, the smaller the pool the more you're relying on luck that suspensions and injuries won't have a serious impact.  We've suffered that in recent seasons.  So in that case, who do you flesh the squad out with, how do you know they'll still be of adequate quality, and as for "options 2, 3 or 4" at League 1 level, are you confident whoever they were would've been much better quality than what we already have ?
On the one hand, yes, it's fair to look at some of the decisions in recruitment, and all who are involved in that - there's clearly more than one - but on the other if the underlying position was that the club were producing an adequate budget in the first place, it's less likely we'd even be discussing any of this.    

I agree that maybe buying expertise in marketing/commercial matters would be a good idea of we cannot recruit a board member with that expertise.

Perhaps we would have been better using the money spent on our recruitment team on that.

I don't think I said that Danny is entirely responsible for our inability to sign players we can't afford. My point is that he is responsible for the waste of much of the funding available and the mistakes that lead to players well below standard being signed.

[Bullyweeno1]

8 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

The idea of going with a smaller pool, quality over quantity.  In theory, yes, more money offered to a smaller number of players could have improved the quality of perhaps the first 11 - 14.  But it's a long season, the smaller the pool the more you're relying on luck that suspensions and injuries won't have a serious impact.  We've suffered that in recent seasons.  So in that case, who do you flesh the squad out with, how do you know they'll still be of adequate quality, and as for "options 2, 3 or 4" at League 1 level, are you confident whoever they were would've been much better quality than what we already have ?

Yes it would have been a risk of going with a squad of 14 signed players but a risk think would have been worth taking compared to where we are - a squad of 25 with probably only a few of the required standard

You would flesh out with the maximum number of loanees from other clubs which think is 4. (These tend to be more miss than hit so would just be bodies if needed)

That would give a squad of 18 that could have been reassessed in Jan

Reality is we need a major overhaul of players out and players in which isn’t going to happen as realistically who would take on the bulk of our players 

End of the day if DGW is out for a prolonged period we are f***** and certain to end up bottom as no one can score it seems other than him and if we can’t score we won’t pick up points as we can’t keep a clean sheet. With  DGW still in place we still have a slight chance of finishing 8th

 

 

[BrigtonClyde]

22 hours ago, FREDDYFRY said:

My take on the question of smaller pool and increased quality is that is the way we should have gone.  

I take the point on injury and suspension but the period of the season up until January we could have ran with it as there is less suspensions given the number of games played and knowing we could bolster the squad with bodies either during the loan period just gone (which we didn’t do inexplicably anyway) or in January. Injury we can’t legislate for I know.

It's a reasonable enough approach.  Of course we're left crossing fingers that at least injuries don't destroy it, and as for loanees, from recent examples we maybe got 2 or 3 out of all of them who could honestly cut it.  The point is more that all of this is a symptom, we shouldn't be in this position, he should be able to get his primary targets building a squad of around 16 or 17 on that basis, then if need be flesh out that number a little more with loanees etc.  That's the underlying issue and it's time it got addressed once and for all.   

[BrigtonClyde]

20 hours ago, haufdaft said:

 

 

I agree that maybe buying expertise in marketing/commercial matters would be a good idea of we cannot recruit a board member with that expertise.

Perhaps we would have been better using the money spent on our recruitment team on that.

 

I'm not even sure it would have much impact on playing budget.  You're talking here about a basic business transaction where a company are hired to carry out these tasks.   They'd predominantly be working off a commission basis, perhaps with a nominal monthly payment to cover costs, but it would also be based on achieving targets.   If such a company did the initial feasibility assessment and decided it was possible to achieve the targets set, then they would accept the terms.  Commission is usually around 20% - 25%, but it could be more generous for them because anything they generate is likely to be more than what exists now.

What's certainly true is it needs addressed now.  It hasn't been for many years, the "gap" being filled during that time by a couple of generous donations which as I understand it were withdrawn this year.  But that's no way to operate in any case, relying on donations.  So whether we're at Broadwood or anywhere else, unless this is put in place you're still going to have the same fundamental problems

[BrigtonClyde]

15 hours ago, Bullyweeno1 said:

End of the day if DGW is out for a prolonged period we are f***** and certain to end up bottom as no one can score it seems other than him and if we can’t score we won’t pick up points as we can’t keep a clean sheet. With  DGW still in place we still have a slight chance of finishing 8th

 

 

Agreed on DGW & it points to what I suspected might be a problem from the start of the season, the midfield.  Understand why the focus has been on the defence while shipping goals but I think we've enough there that'll be decent enough.  What we lack in midfield is a bit of creativity & energy, probably a couple players light.

IIRC DL said at recent meeting he'd like a creative ball carrying player there.  That's a start but we also need someone who can take a game by the scruff of the neck with pace.  You get a couple players like that in, likely they'd help Cuddihy, Gomis & Splaine, we'd be able to control longer periods of the game and impose ourselves more when the opposition have it, create more chances for the likes of DGW, Cunningham and Love who've all shown they can score, and also take the weight off the defence, allow them to do their job.

It'll also allow players to be in their right position.  Could be he's been moving some around to counter the fact we don't yet have what we really need in there, DGW possibly being an example in the hopes that with his ability he'd be able to create something.  I've no idea who's available, if they'd have a budget for them, but if they were able to add that in there I'm pretty sure it'd make a big difference to the whole team. 

[Bullyweeno1]

12 hours ago, BrigtonClyde said:

IIRC DL said at recent meeting he'd like a creative ball carrying player there. 

 

Of course he would, he isnt going to say "nah dont like any creativity in the middle of the park".

Midfield is where i think are missing the real missing link and what we need that would as you say provide chances for the attack and take pressure of the defence.

The type of creative we need is someone like an Easton (from Airdrie) who was brilliant for us in his  half a dozen games about 5/6 years ago or a Connell (from QPs)

We also need a defensive midflelder like a Grant (from Stirling)

As you say we also need real pace in midfield and someone who can go box to box.  Someone like Cuddihy can do but with more creativity or who can thread a killer pass.  Cant think off the top of my head and example of a player.

[BrigtonClyde]

18 hours ago, Bullyweeno1 said:

Of course he would, he isnt going to say "nah dont like any creativity in the middle of the park".

Midfield is where i think are missing the real missing link and what we need that would as you say provide chances for the attack and take pressure of the defence.

The type of creative we need is someone like an Easton (from Airdrie) who was brilliant for us in his  half a dozen games about 5/6 years ago or a Connell (from QPs)

We also need a defensive midflelder like a Grant (from Stirling)

As you say we also need real pace in midfield and someone who can go box to box.  Someone like Cuddihy can do but with more creativity or who can thread a killer pass.  Cant think off the top of my head and example of a player.

To my mind Gomis is a defensive midfielder but another who's getting played a bit further forward to try & counter what's missing.  If we had what we're talking about, and let Gomis play his natural role I think we'd get the best out him.  But either way, it's definitely the area we need to strengthen.  Presumably DL has outlined to the recruitment team what he's looking for and it's up to them to source and present the required type & quality.  At least I'm assuming that's the case, otherwise I don't know what role they're supposed to be playing. 

I can't think of any specific players either, just the type of player. 

[ClydeFCTheBullyWee]

Thinking for Saturday I’d like to see Danny revert back to his old 433 formation we used to play and actually be good at playing. With Love and Cunningham on the wings it lets goodie do what he does best in the middle. Gomis, Splaine and Nicoll/Kennedy in the midfield. With Cuddihy, Elsdon, Page and Livingston at the back. We know it works from previous seasons although with different players and we need to field our strongest XI on Saturday n personally I don’t think we can get any stronger than the team above. We’re a footballing team and not a long ball team, playing this formation gives us the best chance to play our football on the ground instead of hoofing it up to 6’6 Jones who can’t win a header. 

[Jack Burton]

Thinking for Saturday I’d like to see Danny revert back to his old 433 formation we used to play and actually be good at playing. With Love and Cunningham on the wings it lets goodie do what he does best in the middle. Gomis, Splaine and Nicoll/Kennedy in the midfield. With Cuddihy, Elsdon, Page and Livingston at the back. We know it works from previous seasons although with different players and we need to field our strongest XI on Saturday n personally I don’t think we can get any stronger than the team above. We’re a footballing team and not a long ball team, playing this formation gives us the best chance to play our football on the ground instead of hoofing it up to 6’6 Jones who can’t win a header. 

We don't have the players to play 433 this season. It worked in previous season because you had the likes of Lang or Howie at the back and McStay and Grant in midfield. Unfortunately we are miles away from that team now.

352 is about the best I've seen from us. All our centre backs are too slow to play with just two there.

I would even be tempted to play Munro or Mortimer at wide right to get Cuddihy back into centre mid. Up top has to be Goodwillie and Cunnigham, Jones offers nothing.

[Bullyweeno1]

On 10/11/2021 at 17:45, BrigtonClyde said:Presumably DL has outlined to the recruitment team what he's looking for and it's up to them to source and present the required type & quality.  At least I'm assuming that's the case, otherwise I don't know what role they're supposed to be playing. 

This will have been the conversation between DL and the recruitment team

DL “right…..we need some midfielders…….think we need some creativity…..someone who can go past an opponent and get bums off seats…..someone with some pace who can go box to box and help out the others in their……Diamond can you go and get me 3 or 4 players who fit this bill”

Diamond “………………no !!!!!”

 

 

[Replays]

12 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

Hello, folks! I just wondered if someone would answer a few questions I have about Clyde:

 

1) I just read this:

Any truth to that at all?

 

2) Are you fan owned? If so, how long has that been the case?

 

Anyway, best of luck to you this season. 

Old news AlbionSaint. This news came from about 2012 and the club have since walked back on that. The EK move has long, long been dead in the water.

In response to your other point, the club are fan owned and have since 2010.

[Mamtora]

12 hours ago, Scott-Replay said:

Old news AlbionSaint. This news came from about 2012 and the club have since walked back on that. The EK move has long, long been dead in the water.

In response to your other point, the club are fan owned and have since 2010.

" Fan Owned", you say. Interesting.

[Jack Phillips]

Anyone know when we can buy Clydebank away tickets?

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Jack Phillips said:

Anyone know when we can buy Clydebank away tickets?

https://twitter.com/ClydeFC/status/1459971737211310082?t=wS2tH3e-Fn12l3-6iiGkKA&s=19